Original Article
The Explanatory Value of Milgram's Obedience Experiments: A Contemporary Appraisal
Arthur G. Miller,
Corresponding Author
Arthur G. Miller
Miami University
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Arthur G. Miller, Department of Psychology, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056 [e-mail: [email protected]].Search for more papers by this author
Arthur G. Miller,
Corresponding Author
Arthur G. Miller
Miami University
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Arthur G. Miller, Department of Psychology, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056 [e-mail: [email protected]].Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
A contemporary appraisal of the explanatory value of the obedience experiments is presented, focusing upon a sample of recent generalizations linked to Milgram's theoretical interpretation. Processes emphasized include justification, the agentic shift, dehumanization, and resistance. These constructs have helped explain diverse phenomena in business ethics and corporate corruption, harmful obedience in legal practice, and whistleblowing, in addition to genocide. The major legacy continues to be the situational thesis that serious harm may be perpetrated upon protesting victims by ordinary, good people under the influence of authority. However, this thesis is still limiting and problematic in the view of many scholars, particularly with respect to the Holocaust. Unanswered questions are discussed. Individual differences in obedience (or disobedience) were noteworthy in Milgram's research, and convincing explanations for these differences remain unaddressed. An empirically validated theory, accounting for Milgram's entire set of observations, is needed, which would facilitate generalizations to relevant contexts.
References
- Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetuation of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193–209. doi: 10.1207/s15327957.
- Baumrind, D. (2014). Is Milgram's deceptive research ethically acceptable? Theoretical and Applied Ethics, 2, 1–18. doi. 10.1353/tha.2013.0012.
10.1353/tha.2013.0012 Google Scholar
- Beauvois, J. L., Courbet, D., & Oberle, D. (2012). The prescriptive power of the television host. A transposition of Milgram's obedience paradigm to the context of TV game show. European Review of Applied Psychology, 62, 111–119. doi: 10.1016/j.erap.2012.02.001.
- Begue, L., Beauvois, J. L., Courbet, D., Oberle, D., Lepage, J., & Duke, A. A. (in press). Personality predicts obedience in a Milgram paradigm. Journal of Personality. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12104.
10.1111/jopy.12104 Google Scholar
- Benjamin, L. T. Jr., & Simpson, J. A. (2009). The power of the situation: The impact of Milgram's obedience studies on personality and social psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 12–19. doi: 10.1037/a0014077.
- Berkowitz, L. (1999). Evil is more than banal: Situationism and the concept of evil. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 246–253. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_7.
- Blass, T. (2004). The man who shocked the world: The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York: Basic Books.
- Bocchiaro, P., Zimbardo, P. G., & Van Lange, P. (2012). To defy or not to defy: Unpacking disobedience and whistle-blowing as extraordinary forms of resistance to authority. Social Influence, 7, 35–50. doi: 10.1080/15534510.2011.64821.
- Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64, 1–11. doi: 10.1037/a0010932.
- Burger, J. M. (2014). Situational variables in Milgram's experiment that kept his participants shocking. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 489–500.
- Burger, J. M., Girgis, Z. M., & Manning, C. C. (2011). In their own words: Explaining obedience to authority through an examination of participants' comments. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 460–466. doi:10.1177/19485550610397632.
- Card, R. (2005). Individual responsibility within organizational contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 397–405. doi: 10.1007/s105510–005–0302–5.
- Cesarani, D. (2004). Becoming Eichmann: Rethinking the life, crimes, and trial of a “desk murderer.” Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press.
- Cole, D. The three leakers and what to do about them. The New York Review of Books, 61, February 6, 2014.
- Einwohner, R. (2014). Authorities and uncertainties: Applying lessons from the study of Jewish resistance during the Holocaust to the Milgram legacy. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 531–543.
- Elms, A. C., & Milgram, S. (1966). Personality characteristics associated with obedience and defiance toward authoritative command. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1, 282–289.
- Fennis, B. M., & Aarts, H. (2012). Revisiting the agentic shift: Weakening personal control increases susceptibility to social influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 824–831. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1887.
- Fermaglich, K. (2006). American dreams and Nazi nightmares: Early Holocaust consciousness and liberal America, 1957–1965. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press.
- Fiske, S. T., Harris, L. T., & Cuddy, A. J. C. (2004). Why ordinary people torture enemy prisoners. Science, 306, 1482–1483. doi: 10.1126/science.1103788.
- Funder, D. C. (2009). Persons, behaviors, and situations: An agenda for personality psychology in the postwar era. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 120–126. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2008.12.041.
- Gino, F., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). When misconduct goes unnoticed: The acceptability of gradual erosion in others’ unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45: 708–719. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.013.
- Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366–385. doi: 10.1037/a0021847.
- Hanson, J. D., & Yosifon, D. G. (2003–2004). The situation: An introduction to the situational character, critical realism, power economics, and deep capture. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 152, 129–346.
- Hartson, K. A., & Sherman, D. K. (2012). Gradual escalation: The role of continuous commitments in perceptions of guilt. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1279–1290. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.005.
- Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2007). Beyond the banality of evil: Three dynamics of an interactionist social psychology of tyranny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 615–622. doi: 10.1177/0146167206928570.
- Jackson, M. (2006). Orders and obedience: Structure and agency. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 26, 309–325. doi: 10.1108/01443330610680407.
10.1108/01443330610680407 Google Scholar
- Kassin, S., Fein, S., & Markus, H. R. (2011). Social psychology ( 8th ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
- Kelman, H. C., & Hamilton, V. L. (1989). Crimes of obedience: Toward a social psychology of authority and responsibility. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Lane, A. The cost of survival: Review of “The last of the unjust.” The New Yorker, February 20, 2014.
- Lipstadt, D. (2011). The Eichmann trial. New York: Shocken.
- Mandel, D. R. (1998). The obedience alibi: Milgram's account of the Holocaust reconsidered. Analyse & Kritik, 20, 74–94.
10.1515/auk-1998-0105 Google Scholar
- Martens, A., Kosloff, S., & Jackson, L. E. (2010). Evidence that initial obedient killing fuels subsequent volitional killing beyond effects of practice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 268–273. doi: 10.1177/1948550609359813.
- Mastroianni, G. R. (2002). Milgram and the Holocaust: A reexamination. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 22, 158–173. doi: 10.1037/h0091220.
10.1037/h0091220 Google Scholar
- McMillan, D. (2014). How could this happen: Explaining the Holocaust. New York: Basic Books.
- Milgram, S. (1961). Dynamics of obedience: Experiments in social psychology. Proposal to the National Science Foundation (personal communication). January 25, 1961.
- Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378. doi: 10.1037/h0040525.
- Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18, 57–76.
- Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.
- Miller, A. G. (1995). Constructions of the obedience experiments: A focus upon domains of relevance. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 33–53. doi.10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01333.x
- Miller, A. G. (2004). What can the Milgram obedience experiments tell us about the Holocaust? Generalizing from the social psychology laboratory. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 193–237). New York: Guilford Press.
- Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38, 379–387. doi: 10.1037/0003–066X.38.4.379.
- Moore, C., & Gino, F. (2013). Ethically adrift: How others pull our moral compass from true North, and how we can fix it. Research in Organizational Behavior, 33, 53–77. doi: org/10.1016/j.riob.2013.08.001.
- Osofsky, M. J., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2005). The role of moral disengagement in the execution process. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 371–393. doi: 10.1007/s10979-005-4930-1.
- Packer, D. J. (2008). Identifying systematic disobedience in Milgram's obedience experiments: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 3, 301–304. doi: 10.1111/ppsc.2008.3.issue-4.
- Perlman, A. M. (2007). Unethical obedience by subordinate attorneys: Lessons from Social Psychology. Hofstra Law Review, 36, 451–477.
- Reicher, S., Haslam, S. A., & Smith, J. R. (2012). Working towards the experimenter: Reconceptualizing obedience within the Milgram paradigm as identification-based followership. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 315–324. doi: 10.1177/1745691612448482.
- Ross, L., Lepper, M., & Ward, A. (2010). History of social psychology: Insights, challenges, and contributions to theory and application. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology ( 5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 3–50). New York: Wiley.
- Shariff, A. F., Greene, J. D., Karremans, J. C., Luguri, J. B., Clark, C. J., Schooler, J. W., Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. Free will and punishment: A mechanistic view of human nature reduces retribution. June 14, 2014, Psychological Science OnlineFirst, 1–8. doi: 10.1177/0956797614534693.
- Shiller, R. J. (2005). Irrational exuberance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Smith, D. L. (2011). Less than human: Why we demean, enslave, and exterminate others. New York: St. Martins Press.
- Strudler, A., & Warren, D. E. (2001). Authority, heuristics, and the structure of excuses. In J. M. Darley, D. M. Messick, & T. R. Tyler (Eds.). Social influences on ethical behavior in organizations (pp. 155–174). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
- Valentino, B. (2004). Final solutions: Mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
- Werhane, P. H., Hartman, L. P., Moberg, D., Englehardt, E., Pritchard, M., & Parmar, B. (2011). Social constructivism, mental models, and problems of obedience. Journal of Business Ethics, 100, 103–118. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0767–3.
- Werhane, P. H., Hartman, L. P., Archer, C., Englehardt, E. E., & Pritchard, M. S. (2013). Obstacles to ethical decision-making: Mental models, Milgram and the problem of obedience. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Wilson, T. D., Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, K. (2010). The art of laboratory experimentation. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology ( 5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 49–79). New York: Wiley.
- Wilson, T. D., DePaulo, B. M., Mook, D. G., & Klaaren, K. J. (1993). Scientists’ evaluations of research: The biasing effects of the importance of the topic. Psychological Science, 4, 322–325. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1993.tb00572.x.
- Wolfe, A. (2011). Political evil: What it is and how to combat it. New York. Knopf.
- Zimbardo, P. G. (1974). On “obedience to authority.” American Psychologist, 29, 566–567. doi: 10.1037/h0038158.
- Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House.
